Oh my
What a discussion this is...
Well you asked about my reasoning behind the balance.
I have a really simple approach of reviewing every catagory including the balance.
I start off by giving 5 for each catagory and then deduct marks on the basis of shortcomings I find in every catagory.

When I played MM on moderate I finished the campaign without sending a single troop to the healing station and the same happened on hard.This is the reason for the rating of four.
This is very controversial because every player will not use the same strategy for the battle and will have diffrent results but my strategy was to use correct unit counters
ie attack the pikemen and musketmen with the swordsmen and then sending in the cavalry to take out the musketmen.
Simple and effective.

Anyway AW has a new version of MM out now I will have to try it out before making any further comments.

Lastly I thank you for bringing this controversial topic into light so that we can discuus it in detail
I am sure that the discussion in this topic will be very helpful for reviewers like myself

[This message has been edited by Sceletar (edited 12-31-2004 @ 04:12 AM).]

I agree that we should take our own level of playing expertise into account. I'd consider myself a moderate player, and would usually view scenarios in that light. My first thought is: I'd consider it excellent balance if I find a scenario challenging, but winnable on moderate, slightly boring on Standard, and numbingly difficult or even impossible on Hard. I would even more think so if the author has bothered to include several difficulty levels.

Let me bring up two scenarios by Marco, which are also my favorites: 100 Years War and Hattin. 100 Years War would be such an example of a perfect balance, in my view. Moderate was tough, but doable, and kept me on my toes. Standard was a bit easy for my taste, and Hard was too hard for me, but can surely be beaten by a master player. Hattin, on the other hand, was very difficult and scarcely winnable for me: I needed dozens of reloads, even on Standard. On Moderate, I stood no chance. I didn't try the Hard level. Considering myself a moderate player, I found the overall balance of Hattin to be good, but too hard to be excellent, as Moderate was impossible for me and my experience of Standard was still extremely hard.

If I considered myself a masterly player, I'd probably take the Hard levels of scenarios as my basis for judgement. If I was more or less new to the game and had only played a few campaigns so far, I would probably take the Standard level as a reference; but I would feel uneasy about reviewing because I would be afraid that my lack of experience could cloud my judgement. If I hadn't played any campaigns before, I would not review at all.

Although it is in the tutorial, I do not entirely agree with the notion that a player absolutely must lose one or two times to experience a balance as perfect. I have played quite a few scenarios where I sweated myself to victory and had to work for it. I experienced the balance of those scenarios to be perfect, even without losing.

Ana, I agree with most of your points when we should make deductions about balance. The only one that I find difficult is "Examples are; misleading, incorrect, or confusing directions, instructions, and/or hints", since this seems to belong into the story/instructions category. Mentioning instructions under "balance" was handled very strictly by our moderating team in the past, and considered a mistake. If this should be revised, we'll really need to discuss this thoroughly and hear everybody's views on this.

Ingo

[edited for typos]

[This message has been edited by Ingo van Thiel (edited 12-31-2004 @ 10:15 AM).]

Great post, AK

In my opinion, the biggest problem with balance is that some reviewers and designers do not really know where they stand in terms of skill level. In regard to designing, this may mean that they do not know how hard to make their scenario on the difficulty levels, because what might be a huge challenge for them might only be a minor challenge for someone else. For reviewers, the same is true: what the designer considered a challenge might be all too easy for them, or vice versa. It is these differences in ability between the designer and reviewer that, in my opinion, means balance scores can sometimes be wrong.

I think there should be more difinite guidelines as to what you have to be able to achieve with the game to considered a certain skill level. Designers should use these guidelines in order to balance their scenario so that there are no discrepancies between the moderate difficulty level, and how hard a moderately skilled player should find it.

Another alternative would be for designers to state the intended downloader, for example the rookie player, an experienced player or a seasoned veteran. This would serve the purpose of telling potential downloaders how hard they might find it, and also warn reviewers to take into consideration the 'target audience' when they give a score for balance.

I agree with what Berserker said, in that the balance guidelines are the haziest part of the reviewing guide. They serve their purpose well mostly, but in a few cases they are no longer adequate, as we have seen with MW's Marston Moor. I believe there should be some really solid guidelines for balance, and not leave it open to interpretation quite so much.

Thats my opinion, anyway *waits to be flamed*

I have been following this discussion in the review thread with interest and have come up with some points of my own:

Quoted from nathbert:

Interesting idea, but if there is a difference between the skill levels of the designer and reviewer, for example if the designer was a rookie and the reviewer a veteran, if the veteran finds it a challenge on hard, but really easy on standard and moderate, AND the designer or people of similar competence find it challenging on moderate, it should have good balance. However if the reviewer cannot find a difficulty level where he/she is presented with a challenge then the scenario has 'poor' balance. This idea of having campaigns/scenarios aimed purely at different ability groups essentially makes the difficulty levels obsolete; a campaign that could be 'hard' for a veteran, 'moderate' for a veteran and 'easy' for a veteran would correspond with a campaign for a rookie anyway because 'easy' for a veteran should be the same as 'hard' for a player of lesser ability.

There would also be many other problems associated with this idea. How would you define a 'veteran' player? I also think that most campaigns made under this system would be designed for a 'experienced' player, leaving many players of less-ability out in the cold. It would be better if each scenario had to be 'one size fits all' in my opinion.

To conclude, I think a scenario should be scored highly on balance if a player can find a difficulty level they are comfortable on. However, if a player classed as 'of lesser ability' can only find this challenge on 'hard', then a 'moderate' or 'veteran' player would not be able to find a suitable level. Quoted from the review tutorial: "Balance is also somewhat subjective since each player is a different skill level and what might be perfectly balanced for one player, might be way too easy or way too hard for another." Does this mean a player of lesser ability who finds their 'balance' on 'hard' level, who would score balance highly conflict with a 'veteran' player who would not be able to find a challenging difficulty level, who would score balance low? Or should a player of lesser ability only be allowed to score highly for balance if the challenge is found on 'standard' level?
I think there should be more clarity on this.

An idea would be to have a scenario, or just the balance, and other subjective categories reviewed by three reviewers, one considered 'standard', one 'moderate' and one 'hard'. This would ensure a balanced 'balance' review. Problems would be with the organiztional challenge of setting it up; maybe review teams could be set up. I don't really know the feasability of this, it's just a suggestion.

Quoted from Ingo van Thiel:

I agree with this point. Many campaigns I have found to be 'hard' or challenging I have completed first time, but have worked really hard for the victory making me feel proud and pleased that I completed the objectives through strategy and guile. I would also give those scenarios perfect balance, regardless of what difficulty level I played them on. Also on this point, if a scenario is challenging but the player has to save and reload many times, should it score down on balance or playability?

Quoted from luke feanor:

Thats a good point - I never thought of that

Anastasia,
Thanks for stimulating my brain. I need it after all that Xmas pudding.

To my mind, a lot of the comments here still avoid the subjectivity problem, i.e. one person's 'hard' is another person's 'easy', and it's difficult to see a way round that in specific terms. As I said before, broadly speaking most people would agree about most scenarios and in BJ's example, although there are differences, 2 out of 3 reviewers found it hard and the third acknowledged the difficuty for inexperienced players. It would be interesting to collect a 100 views on that, perhaps we could encourage people to leave comments... If we found 70 saying it was very difficult would that be enough for a consensus?

Anyway, to the arguments.

Quoted from Anastasia:

I agree that not all objectives need be difficult, eg bringing X to Y, and a scenario should not be marked down if one objective is very easy. It is the overall difficulty or ease that should be judged.

Quoted from Anastasia:

I can see no reference in the tutorial to difficulty levels. In fact it seems to assume that there are none. Having difficulty levels circumvents many of these problems because between them all skill levels should be satisfied. That is why I am not particularly bothered if a scenario is difficult but fun on easy and impossible on other levels. A scenario need only be played on one level and if it satisfies on one level then that is fine (if not worthy of a 5). Of course, it is better for me if it is hard on hard but then we are back to the problem of how to define hard!

Quoted from Ingo van Thiel:

Agreed.

Quoted from Ingo van Thiel:

I agree with this also, although I appreciate Anastasia's point that a deficiency in instructions can impinge on the balance. The scoring categories are not watertight. I questioned what I think is a similar anomaly whereby map design is scored under 'creativity' and 'map design'. There is a more general point here about the tutorial. I think it is an excellent document and Angel Spineman deserves much credit for producing it. We can either decide that we must adhere to it as it stands or we could review, and perhaps update, parts of it. (I use the term 'we' loosely!)

[This message has been edited by Stephen Richards (edited 12-31-2004 @ 08:05 AM).]

Er...

Quote:

This doesn't sound like your review, Sceletar.

Quote:

Nowhere do you mention that moderate should be harder.

And now there is not three, but [four] levels.

Getting back on track...

The main question is how can a designer make levels that are suitable to the general public? How he or she get it right the first time? The author can only think to a certain extent. In my opinion, if the author pains himself or herself to create levels in his or her scenario, and each level has a distinctive taste or flair, it is perfect balance.

Geez...if I make MM's hard level harder, others will complain, such as Colo or Zak, but Sceletar will love it. If I make MM's easy level harder, the players straight from the ES Campaigns will not enjoy it, since their skill level is low. If I make MM's Moderate level harder, players like Colo or Zak will find it hard to beat Marston Moor.

So, you see? Balance is the most controversial part of a scenario, both in design and in review. A designer can never get it right. He or she cannot determine whether the public is good or bad.

In this case, my scenario, Marston Moor, explains that case throughly. It seems that every review is consistent at 4.6. I can use one review to argue deductions of the other review, but the tutorial says it is up to the player and his or her skill level.

The question is, how can the designer create a well-balanced scenario where everyone can agree that the difficulty level deserves a 5. And, are the previous scenarios who obtained a 5 on Balance...should they be re-evaluated? In fact, using this case, many 5 are starting to look like 4s. Marko is an excellent example. Most of the reviews say it is downright insanely brutal even on easy or moderate. I mean, if it is brutal on easy, extreme on moderate, and unthinkable on hard. What is left to say? Is that the ideal balanced scenario. If you are constantly reloading, and stuck at the same place everytime, is it still the ideal perfect balance?

Let's say we had the three reviewers reviewing one of Marko's campaigns. Only example I can think of FF Now, Sceletar may just hand out the 5, because he is a veteran player and enjoys the challenge. But the novice and experienced player must get frustrated and discontent with the level of difficulty and hand out the 4. Another example of the controversy behind the tutorial.

Folks, I am not saying that the tutorial needs to be completely redone, just a minor tweak, such as a sentence, will do. In fact, maybe I am thinking of a system that asks for the player to input his name, to adjust the difficulty level accordingly. But I know that will be unlikely, for there are too many out there.

Balance will keep biting me in the arse, because I know some will complain, "wahhh...too hard", and others, "meh....too easy". If the novice/experienced player is happy, the veteran is bored. If the veteran is happy, the novice/experienced say it's too hard. Hence, the creation of levels. If you know you are a good, mastery player, like Ingo, you would not even touch easy or moderate. That would be unfair and biased due to your skill level. Your definition of easy and mine are totally different.

-MW

[This message has been edited by Ancient War (edited 12-31-2004 @ 09:24 AM).]

Quoted from MW:

The only way of solving this is to provide more difficulty levels - something most designers wouldn't wish to do.

What needs to be done is to have some sort of 'set-in-stone' definition of how hard something should be on moderate. The way to test if this is fulfilled with a design is to have moderately skilled playtesters testing it pre-release. This way, moderate difficulty level will always be too hard for a rookie, a challenge for an experienced player and too easy for a veteran. Equally, the easy and hard levels should be more clearly defined. If the designer wishes to have an extra easy or extra hard difficulty, then they can use the remaining difficulty levels.

This would also benefit the player, since they can always know which difficulty level they should play a campaign on. Because, for example, a veteran player may naturally try Hattin on hard, and still get beaten by it (it is punishingly tough). If Hattin was adhering to my ideas, then all of the difficulty levels would move up a 'notch', ie moderate becomes hard, hard becomes extra hard etc.

Perhaps the current format of rating balance could be scrapped all together, and replaced with how close the scenario can get to being a perfect challenge for someone of a set difficulty level. This would require reviewers to have a clear idea of how good they are (it would also mean they needn't try the campaign on any other difficulty other than there own).

I hope at least some of my insane ramblings made sense

[This message has been edited by nathbert (edited 12-31-2004 @ 09:51 AM).]

I agree with nathbert 100%. The veteran would find hard much easier, like sceletar. The only option is to provide more difficulty levels, which is a real painful process.

[This message has been edited by Ruler of Hell (edited 12-31-2004 @ 09:54 AM).]

Quote:

I suggested something similar earlier but it is a circular argument: how do you gauge the skill of the tester?

That is where my original argument comes in (at least I think it was my argument ): We need a more definite way of guaging peoples skill levels. Simply defining a rookie player as someone who has played through the ES campaigns isn't enough. We need a more definite way of knowing which category people fall under. I'm damned if I can think of a way to do it though

Exactly.

MM has four levels now: easy, moderate, hard, uber hard.

-MW

Exactly what MW has done in his scen. Another difficulty level. That would make people give it a better review. People have more variations. Sceletar would find this version better because it has the tougher difficulty level which would suit his need. Thats would they need. Variations.

Quote:

We could make everyone sign up to the Zone and get a rating! There is a scenario which somebody designed to test micro-ing skills which is probably the main skill required in most scenarios(?). But you'll never get everyone to do this and it is a bit complicated. I'm not convinced we really need to be so precise about it.

[This message has been edited by Stephen Richards (edited 12-31-2004 @ 10:25 AM).]

Quoted from stephen:

Yeah, I agree. Perhaps if the reviewer alone knew his/her skill level they could review the scenario based on just the one difficulty setting.

This still requires a constant difficulty across all scenarios so that the reviewer doesn't have to try all the different settings before they find the correct one for them. This would mean some difficulty guidelines for the designer have to be made, though. And even then, the designer would still have to know their own level of playing skill

I can see this is just going to go full circle. Is there really much wrong with the current guideline's view on Balance ratings? Perhaps a little bit of change is required, but not too much.

Great post Ana, and there is some interesting and valid points made by all. It’s nice to see a good discussion where we can all tax our brains.

My only concern with regard to this discussion, or interests if you like, are for difficulty differences, both from a reviewers and designers point of view. The review tutorial makes no reference to difficulty dynamics in the way I interpret it. And any game that doesn’t have difficulty dynamics, other than those that are in built to the game, should, and indeed can still score a maximum for balance. So I would like to ask a hypothetical question.

Lets create two scenarios, both identical, but one has difficulty dynamics and one doesn’t, and the same person reviews both.

Scenario 1 has no difficulty variations apart from the built in differences that occur in the game, such as on easy the AI won’t attack villagers.

Scenario 2 has marked variations in easy to hard settings, removing enemy units for easy, giving extra hp, AI variations where archers backup and shoot, etc.

Scenario 1 has perfect balance for the veteran player, the person who reviews it, and as such he/she scores with a 5.

Scenario 2 has this same perfect balance on moderate, yet playing one easy it was very easy, and playing on hard it was very hard. In light of this, and from what I have interpreted from your comments, the score is deducted accordingly.

So my hypothetical question: Is this unfair to the second scenario or not?

_{Hehehe, the second scenario sounds like MM}

But seriously, BJ brings up an excellent point. The author pained himself or herself to bring in more levels, and thus a better environment of "playing the scx".

While, on the other hand, the another designer did not be squat about levels, and was lucky that the ES levels fulfilled the player's demands.

-MW

Quoted from Berserker:

What I meant in my earlier posts was that each of the levels should be perfectly guaged for that level of player (Easy for rookies, Moderate for experienced players and Hard for veterans). Provided the reviewer knows their own skill level, they only have to play the appropriate level to rate balance. And, instead of the method for rating balance we currently use, we could instead employ a method of rating how close the level gets to being the perfect challenge (taking into account the reviewers ability and the level they are playing the campaign at). The problems this would produce are many, but the biggest is people who are borderline between skill levels (easy is rather boring and doesn't tax them while moderate is still too hard, etc etc).

A solution to this would be to combine the playability and balance categories. The fact that the scenario is the perfect difficulty would contribute towards gameplay, surely? I think the balance category is so open to interpretation currently, that something drastic like this would be a good option.

The problem comes, however, when the reviewer doesn't know whether or not the scenario is perfectly guaged on the higher or lower difficulty levels. Perhaps they could still play it all (or at least try to) and see whether they find the lower settings too easy and the higher settings too hard (assuming they are moderately skilled).

Okay! This just sounds like the current balance reviewing system, just with the playability and balance categories combined. Scrap the rest of my ideas and stick with this one - what does everyone else think of it?

Quoted from AW:

You don't know that, the reviewer wouldn't know that. For all we (hypothetically) know, the designer might have intended to use the standard difficulty levels from ES on purpose to set up the balance. That is a problem, do you give the designer the benefit of the doubt or not?

[This message has been edited by Luke_Feanor (edited 12-31-2004 @ 12:36 PM).]

According to the tutorial, the benefit of the doubt goes to the designer.

Quoted from BJ:

-MW

[This message has been edited by Ancient War (edited 12-31-2004 @ 01:55 PM).]

Sorry, missed that.

But that means that it is not unfair to BJ's hypothetical second scenario.

[EDIT] This means you should assume that the designer intended to use the standard levels, meaning that it wasn't luck and so the scenario ratings are fair.

[This message has been edited by Luke_Feanor (edited 12-31-2004 @ 02:04 PM).]

Here comes the rook in reviewing .

I know I just started reviewing (I have right now about 5 reviews, 2 of wich were deleted because of flaws in them), but I still have a right to discuss this.

For me, the 'easy level'(This is not for me) must be for those who are currently new to the game. They have just learned the principals of the game. It must have some thinking and strategy, but this is very far from being impossible. Respecting Ingo in his discussion about the 'standard' difficulty in Marco's campaigns, it was very difficult for me, in fact, it was rather impossible for someone my lvl when I started coming here(Talking about the 100 years war).

The 'moderate' lvl (This is not for me) is for those who seek a challenge that isn't easy or neither difficult. It's for those that have about 1 year playing the game. It requires designing strategies without thinking about it alot.

The 'Hard' lvl (This is for me :P)is for those who have about 2-6 years playing the game. It should prove difficult for them but not impossible. It should require alot of thinking and designing strategies.

I hope this has clarified for some of the folks that just read this your thinking.

--sSc_Cobra007

[This message has been edited by sSc_Cobra007 (edited 12-31-2004 @ 02:43 PM).]

Sceletar:
Thanks for explaining your experience with Balance again. Your original Review comments and score was keeping with the tutorial.

MW:
I agree that the way Sceletar worded his comment/explanation was slightly confusing and could have been clearer. However the important thing is that he followed the tutorial and his concern for your design was valid. A reviewer can easily update their reviews, but keep in mind that reviewers are tasked with creating explanations that don't give away the game-plot or create a walkthrough.

It should be encouraging for all that are following the discussion about the Marston Moor Reviews, that in both cases their were valid reasons for the deductions. Even though Zak made some critical mistakes in reasoning the balance score, when it came right down to it his own experience with the 'easy' level was an honest account.

Everyone:
My assertion is that the tutorial works if we follow it.

It's interesting to me that the hypothetical arguments keep being created around the built in difficulty levels, and the instruction to take our own skill into account when reviewing balance.

I know this was the point of contention in the MM Reviews because for one veteran player the balance satisfied all the considerations for the tutorial and another it didn't by one point and we are claiming that the tutorial failed?

If this was a one point difference in Playability or Creativity or Map design we wouldn't bat an eyelash at it. Sceletar might have underestimated his skill, but yet when he described that he used counters to achieve victory easily on hard, this strongly suggest that he has not underestimated his skill in his considerations for balance. We have no reason to doubt that another player using counters and perhaps having the same reflex/reaction skill as Sceletar will find the level equally unchallenging according to the tutorials definition of a challenge. The consideration for balance was made properly and the Review has the value it is intended to have. Now Selectar could have reconsidered his score based on MW's further describing his intent and goals, or like what has happened -- MW can revisit the balance, believing that there is some improvement he could make in the light of it all. This is part of the value and reason for the AOKH Review feature.

Berserker:
It is fair to the second scenario if we use the tutorial in our considerations for balance. I understand what you are getting at but the value is in it's ability to give feedback on the results of our scenario design efforts. However we can and probably should, if we are in doubt; use the built in balance of Age of Kings as our model for excellent balance (now that it's been patched up ).

In other words if we use the tutorial, that in my opinion is really good at helping even someone who doesn't understand balance, score the balance, we wouldn't make an unfair consideration of it's balance. Where there was doubt we would not make a deduction.

There is a lot of doubt in those descriptions of balance (too easy and too hard), yet they are common terms and I think we all have used them in a Review...

Quoted from Ingo:

Ingo:
If my memory serves, we did ask Reviewers to give a clear indication in their comments/resoning of how those aspects affected the balance having been confused with the other category? However, I have caused a similar circumstance with my example, and I understand and appreciate your point.

Everyone:
The point I was trying to make is one basic to game theory and that is that players shouldn't fail to achieve the objective(s) by anything but what is their own fault (player perception is what matters).

Take 'tic-tac-toe' for instance, once we learn the viable strategy for achieving victory, we discover that the experienced player who goes first always has the advantage and will always win. The game is fun until we discover this, and perhaps even after we discover it too? That is until we play with someone who understands this imbalance and you end up arguing over who gets to go first. It doubt if it will make much difference to the player who goes second, even if a coin toss or die roll, is given to determine who goes first. The player who goes second knows they will lose and no amount of skill will enable him to achieve the victory objective of three in a row, against the experienced opponent. The second player loses the game by no fault of his own.

If we mislead players with our creative devices for instruction and our game becomes more difficult (Hard) it is not good balance. If we (our designs) give our player the notion or direction that a choice is viable and it is not then it is not the player's fault for the choice, and we will have created an imbalance in our game-play. This is similar to being unlucky enough to go second in a game of tic-tac-toe.

Game-play can be understood as choices that have a cost and reward in a game. If the choices are unbalanced (weak vs strong, cheap vs expensive, etc.) then players will choose the more effective choice every time even if it diminishes the fun of playing.

So a choice has a cost and reward (achieve objective(s), advance the game-plot, upgrade, learning curve, resources, etc.) that is ultimately paid for by skill. If we set up a situation where a 'given' choice in the game has a cost but no reward -- the choice is unbalanced with the other choices (game play). If we are mislead to suffer the cost of a choice and we become frustrated by it then this is a balance issue.

We seem to understand when a game is unbalanced when we have an incredibly strong hero and we can achieve every objective (reward) with no cost (ultimately paid in skill) to any of our choices...making our skill meaningless. Yet we are struggling to understand balance when there is no reward...making our skill equally meaningless.

The fact that we struggle (pay a cost) and perceive the objective(s) as difficult doesn't mean the game-play is balanced. Once we the players perceive the cost to have no reward we should consider the game play unbalanced.

If we look at balance as a spectrum we have always possible (no chance to loose or no cost) at one end and we have always impossible (no chance to win or no reward) on the other. Both extremes will tip the scale of balance in the objective(s) and cause it to be unbalanced.

The next bands on either end of the spectrum is slight cost and slight reward and they have to be balanced with each other or they will tip the scale also.

Great cost and slight reward is unbalanced, as is slight cost and great reward too. The former might be considered 'hard' and a challenge while the latter 'easy' and not a challenge but they are unbalanced because as a player advances their own skill they will remain unbalanced.

___________________________________________________

Thanks to everyone for your insight, please forgive me if cannot directly respond to all your points as we continue the discussion on balance.

I'm interested in knowing what everyone's idea or description of balance is?

[This message has been edited by AnastasiaKafka (edited 12-31-2004 @ 06:49 PM).]

@Ana
Don't worry. I already updated it with a new level called "Sceletar Level" for those who criticized the level of difficulty. And would it trouble you to run through MM once? I think after playing it, the understanding is much clearer.

-MW

Huh? I guess I stumbled upon an educated discussion on my way to Town's Crier.

What if easy was just TOO easy, IMO? I'm rereviewing the new version, btw.

Edited to make the "too" stand out.

[This message has been edited by Chewmen_zak (edited 12-31-2004 @ 06:53 PM).]

Was easy really that easy? I changed the stats

-Instead of 250 HP bonus, it is 120.
-Instead of 20 Attack bonus, it is 10.

-MW

I was referring to the old version. The new one is balanced and my ratings will reflect that as soon as I get my conqs cd back...

This topic is really burning

I have done some solid thinking regarding this matter yesterday and I think I have come to a conclusion.

The question here is how do we judge the balance of a campaign when players of different skill levels have different opinions about it right?

IMO the balance of a campaign should be judged on the basis of the mental effort and thinking the player has to put in while playing the campaign to be victorious on various levels.

On easy level the player should be able to win without any strategies, a good knowledge of RTS should be enough to win on this level.

On moderate level the difficulty must make the player think up a strategy for victory (sending large amount of troops or attacking head on should not be enough to win on this level)

On hard level the difficulty must be such that it forces the player to change his/her whole approach to the campaign. The player must have a totally new experience with the campaign on this level and must be forced to think up effective tactics and strategies for victory. The player should not be able to win by applying the same tactics he used on moderate and easy level to get victory on hard level.
The difficulty should not be insanely tough so as to make it impossible to finish on hard. The player should know that there is a way for victory on this level; he/she just needs to try hard enough. Afterall what is the point of making a hard difficulty level when players cannot win it on hard after playing a few times on easier levels, nobody is a veteran player from the start, they all learn by playing on easier levels and gradually move on to the next level so the designer must keep this thing in mind to offer a good challenge to players on this level.

All this goes for campaigns, which offer multiple difficulty settings, but how do I judge the balance of a campaign, which does not have such options?

Here is my opinion for the ratings.
A rating of 1 is for a campaign which offers absolutely nothing in the name of a challenge.2/3 is for campaigns which initially give a tough time but after that become very easy (Most B&D campaigns have this problem) 2 or 3 is dependant on exactly how hard it is to survive in the initial stage.
4 should be given to campaigns, which the amateurs have really tough time completing and the moderate level players find really challenging. The veteran must also need to play well to win this one. (He should not find it a piece of cake)
5 should be given to campaigns whose difficulty would challenge the skills of the veteran player and at the same time should not be impossible for the moderate level player, he should be able to win it after trying hard enough. Fithel by Gasper is a good example of such a campaign, that campaign is made to challenge the good players but moderate level players will eventually be able to figure out a way for victory by not repeating some mistakes.

Some Veteran players may be able to finish a campaign no matter how hard it is in their first try without reloading, IMO they should give the balance score on the basis of how much they had to be alert and careful for winning it? How much thinking and planning they needed to chalk out a strategy for victory? Lastly whether the campaign could keep them on their toes.

Finally I request all the reviewers to review only those campaigns which they have finished on all difficulty levels (I strictly follow that) so that they can pass a fair judgment of the balance. (How fair is it to the designer to write a review after finishing on moderate level and failing on hard level only to deduct points for balance by complaining about too much difficulty on hard level)
Of course you can complain about the balance if you have tried a lot of times on hard and you still cannot think up any possible way to win it on that level. (Though it will be fairer to the designer if you ask for some help on winning on hard from him before writing a review). I also request the designers to make sure that they can finish their campaign on all three levels before submitting them (How do you explain making a campaign which you yourself cannot finish on hard level?)

I hope my little part in this discussion is of some use. Anyway thanks to this topic I have at least been able to clear my approach to judgment of balance

@Ancient War
I hope my post has cleared up the view I take to judge the balance of a campaign.BTW the new level of MM is really challenging but sadly the campaign loses it's essence of a FF on that level.I won by luring small groups of the enemy away and ambushing them(Took a long time)

Wish you all a very Happy New Year

[This message has been edited by Sceletar (edited 01-01-2005 @ 03:23 AM).]

Quoted from sceletar:

I for one am not good enough to do most of Marko Crnigoj's campaigns on Hard
____________________________________________________________

Imo, a perfectly balanced scenario should provide a challenge for a rookie player on easy, a challenge for an experienced player on moderate and a challenge for a veteran player on hard. That is my definition of a perfectly balanced scenario.

The problem comes when the reviewer tries to identify whether it would have been a challenge for someone of a different ability level for them. In terms of what sceletar said, it shouldn't be necessary for a reviewer to have completed it on all difficulty levels because they may be physically unable to. If all reviewers had to be very gifted players as well as writers we'd be left with virtually no reviewers left, and that wouldn't be fair on all the designers who never get a review for their work as a result.

Balance is a category that is very open to the interpretation of the reviewer. What Ana said about getting payback for for your effort at completing an objective would only work if there were some sort of set guidelines as to what was a good challenge, what was too easy and what was too hard. Currently, that would be too dependant on the reviewer to be fair (if the reviewer was particularly tenacious and determined they might still get satisfaction from completing something they've had to retry 20 times, whereas a normal person would have just given up).

It is these arguments that are my basis for believing balance should be combined with playability in one category.
____________________________________________________________

Btw, Happy New Year, everyone

[This message has been edited by nathbert (edited 01-01-2005 @ 05:31 AM).]

@Nathbert

I agree that every reviewer is not a gifted player but tell me should a reviewer deduct points for balance by claiming it is too hard when he is not a very good player?
IMO he should give the benefit of doubt to the designer.Eg many would find it difficult to finish the FF campaigns by Marko on hard but they all know that good players can finish it on Hard.

Quote:

I have finished them all on hard .Except for Hattin partially,I just cannot give victory to the crusaders on hard
A real Veteran should have done that.I have still a long way to go to reach that stage but I will get there soon

[This message has been edited by Sceletar (edited 01-02-2005 @ 04:51 AM).]

@SWGB people often rate balance as: how many times you die. They should read this too.

I rate balance simply from my experiences in the level. I'm not the kind of reviewer that goes looking in all details (except when it comes to creativity). IMO scenario's should be as hard as possible (but with slight differences in the difficulties) but still completable without too much effort. This gets a 5 from me, and for any frustations etc. I'll decuct points. However, I look more in global, I don't go using a list like you did.

Well, that's just the opinion of a SWGB designer. Excuse me if I forgot something .

Quote:

Err....that's your stragedy. Everyone has a different one of how to win. How does it take away from the FF? You don't get any more units, you are stuck on one side of a map, there are no RPG elements, no potions, no RTS elements.

How does it lose FF elements? I have to challenge that reasoning. If you used the luring technique, that's your opinion/stragedy of beating the game. Another person could use a different method. Your conclusion in "losing FF elements" is rash and not thought out. Your statement is just plain bad. How do you think players win at Marko's campaigns? They lure them and kill them. Do you really think that the player is that dumb in sending all of his or her units to be slaughtered? Oh no.....you use the same luring stragedy you used in MM. So what? How does that take away from FF?

Then, the question becomes how to create a level that is suitable for veterans without them whining about "FF Elements".

EDIT-
MW's MM Levels
Easy...challenge to people straight from ES cpx
Medium...challenge to noob-experienced players
Hard- challenge to experienced-veteran players
Sceletar Level- challenge to veteran and up players

-Disgruntled MW

[This message has been edited by Ancient War (edited 01-02-2005 @ 12:29 PM).]

Quote:

So thats why the only Marko FF I managed to beat above standard difficulty was Towton... I'm a bit of a fool...

I feel that using tactics like that kind of makes it feel like its not a real battle, though.

But the designer did not mean to use that stragedy. The tutorials give the benefit of the doubt to the designer. I did not put anywhere in the hints to use the "lure" stragedy.

Historically, the battle lasted two hours...not long. The parliament outnumbered the Royalists and had better troops. It was an easy victory for Parliament to begin with. Now I have to toughen it up? No. This is the farthest I can go. It was not supposed to be a hard battle. In fact, most of the Civil War (England) was in Parliament's favor. Now I have requests to toughen it up? Well, go back in history and change it.

-MW

[This message has been edited by Ancient War (edited 01-02-2005 @ 02:00 PM).]

@Ancient War

You took my statement wrongly AW
At extreme level it becomes so tough that you sort of lose the enjoyment of the campaign(As I told in my earlier post my strategy was acually to use the correct unit counters and not by luring soldiers)Another thing I want to make very clear is that when I told you to slightly increase the hard difficulty,I meant to make it more challenging to make the experince of playing on hard a bit more diffrent than playing on moderate)
You see I had the same experience on moderate as with hard on MM(only the number of surviving units was varying)

You could have made it much more challenging on hard had the royalists troops behaved a bit more agressively(Say some units were tasked to attack Cromwell directly making the player a bit more alert or if the remaining royalists would have formed a defencive formation all around Rupert to protect him towards the end)Slight changes like these can make that much of a diffrence in balance.Increasing and decreasing enemy hp is not the only way to bring variation in balance(This is why Marko needs 400+triggers for his campaigns IMO)

I don't want to be rude here,I respect you as a fellow
forumer and designer but I have my own view of looking at things.I hope you get my point

Quote:

That is the dumbest strategy to use in his campaignsTry that in Hattin or Hastings(You will see what I mean)
I have finished most of Marko's campaigns on hard and the key to victory is always to keep your calm while playing,pressing the pause button when needed and to always look for opportunities to take out enemy heroes and to use the range units(if provided) very carefully and wisely.

[This message has been edited by Sceletar (edited 01-04-2005 @ 03:31 AM).]